Meetecho:
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?group=e151c439-e5cb-4bf3-af4b-620fb4b7a73e
CB presenting
Presented slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-cbor-12/materials/slides-interim-2024-cbor-12-sessa-document-tour-00.pdf
CB: We're done with 4 documents. -time-tag is in AUTH48.
-update8610-grammar is in EDIT. -edn-literal waits for AD Go Ahead. The
related -core-yang-sid is also through AUTH48.
OS: I have to review -edn-literal. If all is addressed, I will move it
forward.
OS: There was also a comment from Roman on -edn-literal that maybe
benefits from more discussion.
CB: I think we shouldn't be overly concerned about the raised issue.
OS: I saw comments from you on this topic, I'd like to see more feedback
from others.
CB: Christian also commented on that, so we have feedback from 2
implementors. There's nothing wrong with the 2-level approach, which is
not excluded. Also based on the PR, the current content is presented as
preferred.
CB: -cddl-more-control completed WGLC. I think the received feedback got
addressed. We can discuss this at IETF 120. I think that the work from
the authors is done.
BL: Is it worth discussing the WGLC comments at IETF 120?
CB: No, the resolution can be checked during IETF Last Call.
BL: More feedback?
MT: Same as above.
OS: If we can discuss it, I actually prefer to have a record. I'd have
it as a tentative agenda item for going through the updates, unless
something more important prevents it.
BL: Ok, let's do that as part of the initial document status check.
CB: -cbor-packed got more feedback based on experience, like from
Christian on building tables. The document -dns-cbor also explores
different approaches. Right now there's also a paper under submission,
but the notification of acceptance is in September, so the content might
not really be revealed this time around at IETF 120. Worth also a
tentative agenda item for IETF 120?
BL: Yes.
CB: -cbor-cde also got a lot of traffic on the mailing list. There will
be a version -04 before IETF 120. We should discuss what to do next.
Version -04 should be ready for WGLC.
CB: There's also two related Informational documents: -cbor-det (we need
to decide what to do with this, either adopt as WG document or
independent stream); and -cbor-numbers addressing complixity of using
numbers, which can make life easier for the -cde document. These points
should definitely be discussed at IETF 120.
CB: -deterministic-cbor can be on the independent stream, considering
all the discussion we have had. There was a last question for
registering tag 201, which Christian answered today, so the registration
should good to go.
CB: We thought we were done with -cddl-modules, but there's a corner
case for specifications importing sockets. We have to implement one way
to handle this. I'll try to have a new version -03 before IETF 120, in
which case I'd like to discuss it at the meeting.
BL: That would be fine.
CB: -edn-e-ref was recently adopted. A few documents are using this,
especially draft-ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin.
MT: There are many more documents. I've updated all drafts I could for
the IETF 120 cut-off to use this.
CB: We look forward to your report about this.
MT: In short, it's simple and nice. Some details might need to be worked
out, but it works nice.
CB: -draft-numbers can benefit of discussion about whether we want to
adopt it.
OS: I think it's worth discussing this. Often it gets challenging when
provisional registrations are involved.
CB: Let's do that.
CB: -yang-standin and -yang-metadata propose some enhancements. They
both need one editorial round, then we need a look from NETMOD. It does
not seem needed to cover them at IETF 120.
CB: There are some more related, informative documents, but we shouldn't
need to discuss those at IETF 120.
(see above)
We have a one-hour session in Vancouver, and need to prepare the agenda
now.
BL: Anything more than above to include in the agenda?
(none heard)
BL: I will prepare a draft agenda and publish it today or tomorrow. It
looks like it will be simple and might not need all the allocated time.
BL: This proposal follows the same cadence as usual. Anyone has an
issue?
(none heard)
BL: I've posted this on the mailing list. If there's no objection, I'll
request for booking the interim meetings, likely during the Vancouver
week.
Note taking: Marco Tiloca